Hey @gcochran99 I just noticed something interesting about this blog post of yours discussing false paternity rates.
Present day fp rates ~1%
Historical surname / gene mismatch also close to those numbers
BUT 1% per generation gives you ~82% not ~99%https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/by-blows-paternal-age-and-all-that/ …
-
Show this thread
-
IOW, contemporary false paternity has EXPLODED compared to the historical past. Assuming 20 generations you'd need about 0.0055 p(false paternity) per generation to get a 0.99 p(gene / surname match) for the whole run.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
It hasn't exploded. Unless in the past month or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gcochran99 @CovfefeAnon
Old example: read about the Sykes patronymic. About 700 years old. Fraction today with the ancestral Y-chromosome: almost half. Projected _average_ nonpaternity per generation: 1.3%. which would include adoption, if any.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99
Ah, so the numbers in the post were a projection of average rates over generations not p(mismatch between genes and surname) as measured today?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Yes. Contemporary means discrepancy between dad and kids today, in a single generation. The historical examples give the projected average rate per generation over some time period. You made a mistake: many more people have been enthusiastically stupid about this.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I'm going to give myself credit here - I noticed a possible inconsistency in the data, did the math and asked for clarification about the words I was interpreting.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.